How Telegram Fuels Digital Piracy

11th September, 2024 - 9:58 am Categories: Copyright Infringement Legal Case Legal Issues 0 Comments

Introduction

The recent arrest of Pavel Durov, the owner of Telegram, has been arrested in France for numerous criminal activities, including illegal transactions, child pornography, and the most important being “refusal to communicate information to authorities” that are continuously being committed on the application, which is dimensionless. It is said to be the new dark web[1], where there is no control over the content. These criminal activities include gambling, extortion and even several copyright infringements. This issue led the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology, and the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre to scrutinize the application and critically decide its suitability for India.

Copyright infringement is committed by every social media application these days. Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, WhatsApp, X, TikTok, YouTube, etc. But usually, these are infringed by taking certain parts of a particular copyrighted song or film. Though it is the infringement of copyright by application of the principle de-minimis, this application still has an adequate amount of rules and regulations. Therefore, they remove copyright-infringed videos quite frequently.

But while discussing the case of telegram it is not the same. On telegram, every book, every movie, every OTT series, and every song is available free of cost without permission of the author or the owner. Let us explore the legal Intellectual Property Infringements that Telegram has faced in the past few years.

Copyright Infringements Case Laws:

There have been several cases where the copyright owner has sued Telegram as per Section 51 of the Copyrights Act of 1957. This section discusses when a right can be infringed, which includes doing any act that is committed without permission of the owner, for-profit basis, for sales, for distributing essentially for the purpose of trade, or for importing it in India. Telegram ironically violating most of the copyrights. These are discussed as follows: –

• In the case of Neetu Singh v. Telegram[2]

The notes of Neetu Singh, which were teaching notes, were illegally uploaded on the telegram page; the plaintiff wanted to take down all the notes from the telegram. The contention here issued was about the disclosure of the identities of the administrator. Telegram subtly denied it because all its servers were in Singapore, but eventually agreed to it.

• In the case of Jagran Prakash v. Telegram[3]:

The famous Dainik Jagran sued Telegram in 2020. During the Covid-19, Dainik Jagran made every article free, but only because it could not have been downloaded. An individual downloaded these illegally and uploaded them freely on Telegram. The plaintiff wrote numerous legal notices but all in vain. This led to filing a case against Telegram for copyright infringement. The court, therefore, granted an ad-interim injunction and also asked to declare the information of the administrators.

• In the case of Living Media India Limited & Anr vs Telegram Fz Llc & Ors[4]

India Today[5] had also sued Telegram for copyright infringement, for sharing information that usually is accessible to individuals who have paid the premium, meaning the content is accessible “behind the paywall.” The Delhi High Court had asked Telegram to give the details of the administrators to the court and a copy of the same to the plaintiff, with the condition that the latter would not disclose it to any third party. Telegram retaliated, stating that they would not disclose the identity of the administrators, which the court ordered to do so by further covering it with a seal. It stated that the defense of the Right to Privacy and Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression would not be considered.

• In the case of Red Chillies Entertainments Pvt Ltd v. Ashok Kumar[6]
  Red Chillies Entertainment had sued Telegram for “unauthorised circulation” of the movie Jawaan. The court had issued a restraining order on the defendant by applying the John Doe principle.

Who Is Liable?

When a user had infringed the copyright owners right, they would be held liable but the main question that arises is whether the platform which is being used for the infringement would it too be held liable? Let us look at some doctrines for understanding the liability :-

INTERMEDIARY LIABILITY:

The scope of intermediary liability was raised under the “Information Technology (Guildlines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rule 2021”. Though the scope of Intermediary Liability is defined as per Section 79 of IT Act. In the case of Shri Krishna International v. Google[7], the court held Google liable stating that despite having information about the infringement the defendants did not take any step. In all three cases stated above, the situation has been the same as in Telegram.

Doctrine of Inducement:

In the case of Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios v. Grokster, Ltd[8], the defendant distributed software through a peer-to-peer network. But this eventually led to them sharing the music and even the video files without the authorisation.[9] The Supreme Court of United States issued the writ of Certiorari held that the administrator who disseminated the authorised files of the disseminators would be held liable as per the doctrine of inducement. The doctrine, in simple terms, states that if the distributor is in any way promoting the copyrighted word illegally, leading to encouragement would be held liable.[10]

Secondary Liability:

The secondary liability is the liability of the individual who has not published the infringed content but is held liable for encouraging such content by providing the medium for it. The secondary liability is said to be of two types one of them being Contributory infringement and the other being Vicarious liability.[11] The former deals with someone who is directly involved in the inducement of the infringed activity. The latter deals with someone who has the authority to supervise the infringed activity. The telegram disputes deal with Vicarious Liability since they are not directly involved in the infringement rather they have the authority to put restict but just seen in the Dainik Jagran case the company does not take any regulations. As discussed earlier about Section 51. Section 51 (a) (ii) and (b) the concept of Secondary Liability applies[12].

Conclusion

In conclusion, while Telegram has indeed committed many infringements, it is also true that this is not the only social media website that infringes content. For example, on Instagram, the fan edits are all copyright infringements. The only issue with telegram is the vast ambit of facilities with bots of all sorts for every series, every song and every movie. Another issue is of the wide ambit groups that lead many to connect and many to be a part of inappropriate illegal activities.

Telegram provides with a great example of how accountability plays an essential role in curbing the misuse of technology. Without any proactive measure by the organisation itself, the exploitation would increase and therefore might lead to a situation as being faced by Telegram itself.

Author: Ananya Kumar Srivastava, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

References

Agrawal, A. (2024, August 27). Telegram under Indian security scanner in multiple cases. Retrieved from Hindustan Times: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/telegram-under-indian-security-scanner-in-multiple-cases-101724697820924.html

Ahmed, N. (2021, August). An Analysis Of The Doctrine Of Secondary Liability Under Copyright Law. Retrieved from NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY, BANGALORE: http://oldopac.nls.ac.in:8081/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/876/LLM873.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

Fits, E. F. (2006). Inducement Liability for Copyright Infringement Is Born: The Supreme Court Attempts to Remedy the Law’s Broken Leg with a Cast on the Arm. Retrieved from Missouri Law Review: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3702&context=mlr

India Today copyright case: Telegram reveals identity of users; Delhi HC allows disclosure of information to police. (2023, December 20). Retrieved from Indian Express: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/india-today-copyright-case-telegram-reveals-identity-users-delhi-hc-information-police-8308196/

Iyer, A. (2020, July 9). Telegram Copyright Infringement Case: India’s Chance to Seek Inspiration from Foreign Principles. Retrieved from SpicyIp: https://spicyip.com/2020/07/telegram-copyright-infringement-case-indias-chance-to-seek-inspiration-from-foreign-principles.html

Jagran Prakashan Ltd. V. Telegram FZ LLC & Ors, I.A. 4072/2020 (Delhi High Court 2020).

Living Media India Limited & Anr vs Telegram Fz Llc & Ors, I.A. 6399/2022 (Delhi High Court November 29, 2022).

M/s Shree Krishna International etc. Versus Google India Prt. Ltc and others.

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005) (2005).

Neetu Singh v. Telegram (Delhi High Court August 30, 2022).

RIdhi. (2023, September 20). Delhi High Court issues orders for Meta, Telegram to prevent copyright infringement of Jawan film… Retrieved from SCC Times, : https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/09/20/delhi-hc-orders-meta-platforms-telegram-prevent-copyright-infringement-jawan-film/

[1]Aditi Agrawal, “Telegram under Indian security scanner in multiple cases”, (Hindustan Times, August 27,2024) https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/telegram-under-indian-security-scanner-in-multiple-cases-101724697820924.html

[2]Neetu Singh v. Telegram, https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pms30082022sc2822020121640-432977.pdf

[3]Jagran Prakashan Ltd. V. Telegram FZ LLC & Ors., CS(COMM) 146/2020 & I.A. 4073/2020 https://www.ijllr.com/post/jagran-prakashan-ltd-v-telegram-fz-llc-ors-cs-comm-146-2020-i-a-4073-2020#:~:text=In%20the%20present%20case%2C%20the,copyright%20along%20with%20financial%20losses.

[4]Living Media India Limited & Anr vs Telegram Fz Llc & Ors

[5]“India Today copyright case: Telegram reveals identity of users; Delhi HC allows disclosure of information to police” (Indian Express, December 20,2023)“https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/india-today-copyright-case-telegram-reveals-identity-users-delhi-hc-information-police-8308196/

[6]Ridhi, “Delhi High Court issues orders for Meta, Telegram, to prevent copyright infringement of Jawan film” (SCC Times, September 20, 2023) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/09/20/delhi-hc-orders-meta-platforms-telegram-prevent-copyright-infringement-jawan-film/

[7]M/s Shree Krishna International etc. Versus Google India Prt. Ltc and others https://iprmentlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Shree-Krishna-Judgment-Dt.-27.09-1.2019.pdf

[8]MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. 545 U.S. 913 (2005)

[9]Evan F. Fitts, “Inducement Liability for Copyright Infringement Is Born: The Supreme Court Attempts to Remedy the Law’s Broken Leg with a Cast on the Arm” (Missouri Law Review, 2006) https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3702&context=mlr

[10]Abhishek Iyer, “Telegram Copyright Infringement Case: India’s Chance to Seek Inspiration from Foreign Principles” (July 9, 2020) https://spicyip.com/2020/07/telegram-copyright-infringement-case-indias-chance-to-seek-inspiration-from-foreign-principles.html

[11]Nehal Ahmad, “An Analysis Of The Doctrine Of Secondary Liability Under Copyright Law” (August, 2021) http://oldopac.nls.ac.in:8081/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/876/LLM873.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

[12]Section 51 of Copyright Act, 1957